[quote]Therizza wrote:
Dude… righteous. I agree completely with your 2 points about the societal failures that breed media bias. What type of scientist are you, if I may ask.[/quote]
I am (evil laughter) a Mathematician.
More:
[i]
…
News outlets that are focusing on the incendiary rhetoric of conservatives outside President Obama’s town hall meeting Tuesday ignored the incendiary rhetoric – and even violence – of liberals outside an appearance by former President George W. Bush in 2002.
When Bush visited Portland, Ore., for a fundraiser, protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting “Bush is a terrorist!”, the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.
…
The lead story in Wednesday’s Washington Post, for example, is headlined: “Obama Faces ‘Scare Tactics’ Head-On.”
“As the president spoke, demonstrators outside held posters declaring him a socialist and dubbing him ‘Obamahdinejad,’ in reference to Iran’s president,” the Post reported. “People screamed into bullhorns to protest a bigger government role in health care. ‘Nobama Deathcare!’ one sign read. A young girl held up a sign that said: ‘Obama Lies, Grandma Dies.’ Images of a protester wearing what appeared to be a gun were shown on television.”
On Sunday, The New York Times reported that a Democratic congressman discovered that “an opponent of health care reform hanged him in effigy” and was confronted by “200 angry conservatives.” The article lamented “increasingly ugly scenes of partisan screaming matches, scuffles, threats and even arrests.”
No such coverage was given to the Portland protest of Bush by The New York Times or the Washington Post, which witnessed the protest.[/i]
[quote]Therizza wrote:
Let’s discuss the systemic problems, not just one iteration of their symptoms. So we have got journalists with no ethics, poor education (or is it just really easy to get a journalism degree) and people seeking awards/ratings for their own sake, and not for the betterment of mankind/dissemination of unbiased facts. What am I missing?[/quote]
Part of the problem are journalists not interested in the betterment of mankind, sure. But just as important is the ignorance of the average viewer, not knowing the shortcomings of journalism in general.
The media doesn’t present the truth, they present a version of the truth. You don’t know what isn’t in the news so obviously you don’t know the truth. You’d be lucky to know even a very small part of the truth through the media these days. The problem is that even if a journalist pays maximum effort and time to presenting events as objectively as possible, the result will still be a manipulated, filtered and deformed version of a certain event. It’s hard, close to impossible, to obtain objective accounts of events around the globe, especially in areas where there is no freedom of press.
But manipulation of news takes on a whole new level with the commentary so called ‘anchors’ deliver alongside the news. A journalist should refrain from any comments on events he or she is reporting on, unless specifically and clearly giving an opinion on the matter.
What needs to be done is admit the shortcomings of journalism. ‘Fair and balanced’ and ‘We report, you decide’, among others, are a clear misrepresentation of what any news channel is capable of doing. It’s not fair or balanced, the journalists decide what events are important to be shown. Besides, you can’t define objectively what ‘fair’ or ‘balanced’ is, it will always be an opinion. Same with ‘we report, you decide’. They don’t report on everything, but on a specific set of events chosen by them.
With that said, there needs to be a clearer distinction between news and opinion. More often than not these two things get mixed up, causing possible confusion for viewers who mistake opinions for news (and by ‘news’ i mean the distorted, manipulated news items).
But i think the most important and beneficial would be for all journalists to be more open about the inefficiencies and inadequacies of journalism in general. There has to be more talk about the shortcomings, and every ethical journalist should refrain from posing to report without bias or from posing to report nothing but the truth. It simply is impossible to do so.
I agree with you on many levels waht. Most definitely on the need to separate news coverage with commentary very clearly. But however impossible it is to ultimately report without bias, you can most definitely tell the difference between a journalist doing his/her utmost to be objective and a ‘journalist’ who is intent on his own opinions.
Its the same difference as being in a conversation with someone genuinely listening and someone intent on only his own opinion. Sure, everyone’s got opinions–but making the effort to keep yours restrained in the interests of letting everyone have as clear a picture of the facts as humanly possible is for me “unbiased”. If we really wanted to be pricks about it (you were not of course), we could apply this sort of reasoning to all sciences–even physics cannot observe anything without fundamentally changing it–that is part of duality and quantum physics foundational principles. In effect every person in the universe is unavoidably in a filtered environment and no one can see anything as it “truly” is.
On the other hand, all I ask is a sincere attempt to do so :). That is certainly humanly possible, although tricky.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
But however impossible it is to ultimately report without bias, you can most definitely tell the difference between a journalist doing his/her utmost to be objective and a ‘journalist’ who is intent on his own opinions.
[/quote]
That is true. Luckily, there still are many journalists whose main goal is to inform their viewers/readers/listeners on all points of view of a certain issue or event. The problem with an in-depth analysis these journalists make, is that it can’t be made into an enjoyable video which can be broadcasted on television. It would be too long and/or too boring for the general public. Not to mention that certain issues or events can more easily be shown on television than others, making it difficult to show a balanced report of this issue or event.
Ofcourse, even though nobody can be without bias, that shouldn’t stop journalists from doing their work. It’s just that they should try to be as objective as possible, pointing out where the uncertainties are, and thus being more honest to the public.
World Net Daily, The Daily Reckoning, Liveleak
[quote]waht wrote:
Therizza wrote:
Let’s discuss the systemic problems, not just one iteration of their symptoms. So we have got journalists with no ethics, poor education (or is it just really easy to get a journalism degree) and people seeking awards/ratings for their own sake, and not for the betterment of mankind/dissemination of unbiased facts. What am I missing?
Part of the problem are journalists not interested in the betterment of mankind, sure. But just as important is the ignorance of the average viewer, not knowing the shortcomings of journalism in general.
The media doesn’t present the truth, they present a version of the truth. You don’t know what isn’t in the news so obviously you don’t know the truth. You’d be lucky to know even a very small part of the truth through the media these days. The problem is that even if a journalist pays maximum effort and time to presenting events as objectively as possible, the result will still be a manipulated, filtered and deformed version of a certain event. It’s hard, close to impossible, to obtain objective accounts of events around the globe, especially in areas where there is no freedom of press.
But manipulation of news takes on a whole new level with the commentary so called ‘anchors’ deliver alongside the news. A journalist should refrain from any comments on events he or she is reporting on, unless specifically and clearly giving an opinion on the matter.
What needs to be done is admit the shortcomings of journalism. ‘Fair and balanced’ and ‘We report, you decide’, among others, are a clear misrepresentation of what any news channel is capable of doing. It’s not fair or balanced, the journalists decide what events are important to be shown. Besides, you can’t define objectively what ‘fair’ or ‘balanced’ is, it will always be an opinion. Same with ‘we report, you decide’. They don’t report on everything, but on a specific set of events chosen by them.
With that said, there needs to be a clearer distinction between news and opinion. More often than not these two things get mixed up, causing possible confusion for viewers who mistake opinions for news (and by ‘news’ i mean the distorted, manipulated news items).
But i think the most important and beneficial would be for all journalists to be more open about the inefficiencies and inadequacies of journalism in general. There has to be more talk about the shortcomings, and every ethical journalist should refrain from posing to report without bias or from posing to report nothing but the truth. It simply is impossible to do so.[/quote]
People on TV are not journalists. They are personalities, or anchors, or whatever, but they are not journalists.
It is very possible to slant print journalism, but more often than not it’s barely possible in the daily papers. The articles must be kept so short that only essential facts make it- hence why I believe that the “slanting” that people whine about in the newpspapers is, 3/4 of the time, bullshit.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
It is very possible to slant print journalism, but more often than not it’s barely possible in the daily papers. The articles must be kept so short that only essential facts make it- hence why I believe that the “slanting” that people whine about in the newpspapers is, 3/4 of the time, bullshit. [/quote]
You can’t possibly believe that ‘… more often than not …’ it’s not possible to bias a print journal? NYT? Boston Globe? Wash. Times? You should see the local Commie rag that is the “Portland Press Herald” here in the politboro of northern New England.
I get the majority of my ‘news’ from print media. The bias is overwhelming.
[quote]waht wrote:
Part of the problem are journalists not interested in the betterment of mankind, sure. But just as important is the ignorance of the average viewer, not knowing the shortcomings of journalism in general.[/quote]
You have it exactly backwards. It is precisely because journalists think they are “bettering mankind” than they unshackle themselves from objectivity.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
waht wrote:
Part of the problem are journalists not interested in the betterment of mankind, sure. But just as important is the ignorance of the average viewer, not knowing the shortcomings of journalism in general.
You have it exactly backwards. It is precisely because journalists think they are “bettering mankind” than they unshackle themselves from objectivity.[/quote]
About 15 or 18 years ago somebody (can’t remember who or where) took a survey of journalism students and found that the number one reason given for going into journalism was to make the world a better place. To paraphrase, I don’t recall the exact wording, but it wasn’t to reliably report news.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
waht wrote:
Part of the problem are journalists not interested in the betterment of mankind, sure. But just as important is the ignorance of the average viewer, not knowing the shortcomings of journalism in general.
You have it exactly backwards. It is precisely because journalists think they are “bettering mankind” than they unshackle themselves from objectivity.[/quote]
In that case they don’t understand how important a free, preferably unbiased press in democracies is. A journalist shouldn’t think he or she knows better than the public they are reporting for. The public has to decide for itself.
It would be terribly sad if most journalists think they are bettering mankind by trying to manipulate the public into thinking what they think is right. An uninformed or otherwise mislead people can never be free, not for long at least.
Nonetheless, the public is as much responsible for this as the journalists are. Maybe the most important thing we can teach our youngsters is to ‘Question Everything’, because that is what dictators fear most: people who dare to question authority.
The media is biased to those who own it, period!
all I know is that TIME magazine is the biggest propoganda machine I’ve ever seen in print
Hellooooo? Media, where are you? There are caskets to be put on TV and you’re nowhere to be found!
Without Bush, media lose interest in war caskets
Remember the controversy over the Pentagon policy of not allowing the press to take pictures of the flag-draped caskets of American war dead as they arrived in the United States? Critics accused President Bush of trying to hide the terrible human cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“These young men and women are heroes,” Vice President Biden said in 2004, when he was senator from Delaware. “The idea that they are essentially snuck back into the country under the cover of night so no one can see that their casket has arrived, I just think is wrong.”
In April of this year, the Obama administration lifted the press ban, which had been in place since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Media outlets rushed to cover the first arrival of a fallen U.S. serviceman, and many photographers came back for the second arrival, and then the third.
…
So far this month, 38 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan. For all of 2009, the number is 220 – more than any other single year and more than died in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 combined.
I quit watching the news because of the ridiculous bias. I just read it now. I can skip the commentary and the bullshit and cross reference everything. The media can suck my dick.
A fundamental reason for the problem is that a large majority of students applying for journalism school give “wanting to change the world” as their reason for wishing to be journalists.
And the journalism schools smile on this and admit these applicants.
Now, few who have changing the world as a goal simply want change of any sort with little interest as to what direction it might be in. No, most that have such a goal want it changed in the direction of their choice, and most certainly NOT in an opposing direction.
We might well have a much less biased media if the people that went into the field had learning the truth, whatever it might be, and making it known as their reason for wanting to be journalists. But no, that is not why most that go into the field do so.
And then there is the fact that those admitted to journalism school have on average the lowest SAT’s of any college (only Education averages lower) and of those who graduate and take the GRE General test, journalism school graduates likewise score second lowest of graduates of any college (with College of Education graduates again taking bottom of the barrel.)
So you have desire to bias going in, combined with scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel intelligence on average.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
A fundamental reason for the problem is that a large majority of students applying for journalism school give “wanting to change the world” as their reason for wishing to be journalists.
And the journalism schools smile on this and admit these applicants.
Now, few who have changing the world as a goal simply want change of any sort with little interest as to what direction it might be in. No, most that have such a goal want it changed in the direction of their choice, and most certainly NOT in an opposing direction.
We might well have a much less biased media if the people that went into the field had learning the truth, whatever it might be, and making it known as their reason for wanting to be journalists. But no, that is not why most that go into the field do so.
And then there is the fact that those admitted to journalism school have on average the lowest SAT’s of any college (only Education averages lower) and of those who graduate and take the GRE General test, journalism school graduates likewise score second lowest of graduates of any college (with College of Education graduates again taking bottom of the barrel.)
So you have desire to bias going in, combined with scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel intelligence on average.[/quote]
So what we need is more people who list ‘wanting to take over the world’ as their goals to move into journalism to give us balance.
Joking aside, I think journalists have always gone into things with an agenda, it is just that the left wing agenda has been a very popular one for a number of years.
Media having journalists with an agenda is not an issue, the issue is if the agendas are not balanced. Shows like Question Time in the UK are great because they bring people in with a full spectrum of views and the host tries to ensure balance. Unfortunately what we get more and more of is single agenda programming.
It seems that those who list “wanting to take over the world” as their goal tend to focus more at finding hollowed-out volcanoes to use as lairs than they do into going into Journalism school.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It seems that those who list “wanting to take over the world” as their goal tend to focus more at finding hollowed-out volcanoes to use as lairs than they do into going into Journalism school.[/quote]
I know which is a shame I think.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
It seems that those who list “wanting to take over the world” as their goal tend to focus more at finding hollowed-out volcanoes to use as lairs than they do into going into Journalism school.
I know which is a shame I think.[/quote]
Hollowed out volcano, cubicle, cubicle, hollowed out volcano…
Oh well…